This movie, for me, is a mixed bag. I think it's a charming movie that has a ton of enjoyable moments and good entertainment, but it's also extremely anchored down by the fact that this film does an awful job staying true to the comics it's based off of. The only thing it did well with staying true to the comics is Garfield himself, as he looks great in this movie, and I think Bill Murray did a great job in his role. But, everything else just doesn't feel right. Nermal, instead of being the cutest cat in the world, is just an ordinary cat. Same thing goes for Arlene, as nothing about her is reminiscent to her comic counterpart. Jon is also completely different than what he should be. Jon's supposed to be a middle aged-ish, sometimes clueless and grumpy, yet good hearted pet owner, but in this film, he's a late 20s-early 30s shy guy that's more worried about getting a date than taking care of his pets. I mean, come on. Were the writers of this film even trying? Also, Garfield is the only one who's actually animated and looks most like his comic counterpart, while literally everyone else is just normal animals. I don't get it, because all the other animals were cartoon like too, but Garfield's the only one to get the treatment? I get that he's the main star of the film, but it's jarring to see everyone else as a normal animal while he just sticks out like a sore thumb. But despite all these major flaws, I will admit that I did find the film entertaining, as it does have a good enough flow to be watchable and enough funny and heartwarming moments to be thoroughly enjoyable. It's a movie that's definitely easy to sit through and can be enjoyable with the right mindset for it. I think kids who've never read the Garfield comics will probably get a kick out of this film. However, despite this movie being watchable, that still doesn't change the fact that this film left out somewhere around 80% of what made the comics good to begin with, and I can't recommend this film to anyone who are fans of the comics, as all it'll do is just disappoint everyone who's expecting to see there favorite comic remade for the big screen, as this film does a pretty terrible job at it. But, like I said, this movie is still pretty fun to watch, so I say to those who are not big fans of the comics to check this movie out, as it's definitely enjoyable for the most part, at least in my opinion. Overall, this is a fun movie that fails miserably to replicate the comics. With that said, just remember to proceed with caution.

The adventures of Garfield the cat were at a premium throughout the 80s and the mid 90s. Jim Davis's wry cartoon strips about the lazy, lasagne-loving couch potato hold a fond place in my childhood. What astonishes is how the character grew to such a phenomenon. How often does it happen that three panels about a fat, flabby tabby cat becomes not just a widely successful comic strip, but also grew to several animated specials, mass-produced merchandise, and Garfield dolls staring out the back windows of cars all over America?Which is why there seems something decidedly odd about a Garfield movie being made about ten years after the hype had died down - it feels like its come too late in the day (although it still grossed a blockbusting 200 million at the box-office). One suspects it wanted to compete with all of the other CGI talking animal movies that were greenlit following the mega-success of Babe, but unfortunately, judging from the finished product, it has more in common with the similarly misjudged Scooby-Doo rather than the delightful Babe.I must admit to not being a fan of the CGI talking animal genre. Babe may have been the one that got the ball rolling, but all the ones that followed in its wake studied its technology but not its thinking. While on the one hand Babe was wowing us with its effects, at the same time the filmmakers crafted a strong story being enacted by a cast of delightful animal characters. But all of its imitators are far more concerned with animals referencing things they couldn't possibly know about, e.g. the latest films and celebrities as well as anachronistic pop songs that only date the film that much quicker, etc. In some sense, Garfield could get away with that, since one of his favourite things to do is watch TV, when he's not sleeping the day away or eating his owner Jon Arbuckle out of house and home (and lasagne). But for a film about such a beloved character, it still emerges as a big disappointment.To its credit, Garfield doesn't come off as cringeworthy as most talking animal movies (just look to Bill Murray's fellow Ghostbuster Dan Aykroyd's Yogi Bear to see how bad Garfield could have been). The requisite film references and animal flatulence that have become sad staples of the genre are kept to a merciful minimum, and all of the characters are here, e.g. Garfield, Jon, Odie, Liz the vet, Nermal, even Pookie, Garfield's beloved teddy bear, etc. And when it comes to Garfield's lazy sarcasm, who better to play that than Bill Murray?But one wishes the lip-service had been worth it, because the story is nothing to get worked up about, only because we've seen it in so many other talking animal movies. Talking animals going on a big adventure is just Homeward Bound, while the villain of the film wanting Odie for nefarious purposes is 101 Dalmations. Even Garfield softening up is something Bill Murray has done before in Scrooged to Groundhog Day (the connection is more overt with GD's Stephen Tobolowsky cast as the villain Happy Chapman).If the plot seems slight, that's because of a fundamental flaw at the heart of the film. How do you turn a three-panel comic strip into a treatment worthy of a feature film? I'm not sure you can, and the film we get is evidence of that. The characters we know are there, but the plot is too threadbare for us to care for any of it. Breckin Meyer's Jon and Jennifer Love Hewitt's Liz bring nothing to the film, even though Liz is an unfeasibly sexy vet. The movie is just as idle as Garfield is.Also, where Garfield should have been the triumph of the film, the special effects are not. Although the other talking animals are done with conviction, the film's biggest special effect, Garfield himself, is a failure on all levels. Just like the then recent Scooby-Doo, he looks too cartoony. He never seems integrated with everyone else, which makes me wonder why he couldn't have been animated just like the other cats in the movie.The film does have an ace in the hole in Bill Murray. Although the script isn't worthy of a comedic actor of Murray's calibre, his dry, wry, laconic voice is perfectly suited to the character. This is hardly one of Murray's funniest performances but he can enliven any film just by showing up. Although he's reduced to a voice, his instantly recognisable sarcasm is the one true success of the movie.The talking animal movie is an extremely difficult thing to pull off. And while I would argue that there are worse, there are better ones too. Garfield falls into neither the former, nor the latter, and certainly without the presence of Bill Murray, Garfield would be a completely throwaway movie. And he's a character who deserves far better than that.

Garfield is a great family movie with great humor and a good storyline.Garfield is without a doubt my favorite comic strip character,I would usually read him at the back off the paper and I also use to love the series,I think that Bill Murray definitely had the perfect voice for Garfield.This movie shows you the origin of how Odie and Grfield first met,showing that Garfields owner John got the dog off Liz and Garfield being very jealous at the start.After John takes Odie to a dog show.A man called Happy Chapman wants to use Odie to advertise his dog products,Odie gets out of the house one night and goes missing and Happy Chapman finds him and does exactly what he had planned to do.Garfield see's Odie on TV but John and Liz are unaware,Garefield decides to head on a journey to save the dog who he realizes he is missing.

This comic strip effort is nothing like the comic strip. The Jon Arbuckle in the movie is different from the Jon Arbuckle in the strip. The cartoon Jon was clueless and was either very angry or upset with Garfield when he got into trouble or was terrorizing Odie. The Jon depicted here seems more like his friend than his owner, and is a little too carefree. And as for the movie version of Odie, well let's just say he comes off more like Benji. Even Garfield himself is not the same as the cartoon. He doesn't seem to be as lazy, hungry, or troublesome. And I'm also not convinced that Bill Murray is the ideal voice for Garfield. It's much too gentle. Nevertheless, it's an entertaining movie. It's just that you'd never guess this was based on a comic strip (that's if you've never read the strip before). When Odie gets lost, and Garfield, Jon and Liz go look for him, the movie really takes off. Perhaps if this were animated instead of live-action, it would seem more like the strip and less like an effort.*** out of ****